Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length

2008-11-22 Thread Eugeniu Patrascu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My gripe was that I wanted to get an IPv6 allocation from RIPE to start testing how IPv6 would fit in the company that I work for and build a dual stack network so that when the time comes, just switch on IPv6 BGP neighbors and update the DNS. But at almost 10.000 E

Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length

2008-11-19 Thread Leo Vegoda
On 19/11/2008 4:27, "Eugeniu Patrascu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > My gripe was that I wanted to get an IPv6 allocation from RIPE to start > testing how IPv6 would fit in the company that I work for and build a > dual stack network so that when the time comes, just switch on IPv6 BGP > nei

Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length

2008-11-19 Thread Iljitsch van Beijnum
On 14 nov 2008, at 14:55, Fred Baker wrote: Before we get too deeply exercised, let Margaret and I huddle on it. The issue you raised can be trivially solved by adding the checksum offset to a different 16 bits in the address, such as bits 96..127. Being checksum-equivalent is important so

RE: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length

2008-11-19 Thread michael.dillon
> My gripe was that I wanted to get an IPv6 allocation from > RIPE to start > testing how IPv6 would fit in the company that I work for and build a > dual stack network so that when the time comes, just switch > on IPv6 BGP > neighbors and update the DNS. > > But at almost 10.000 EUR per year

Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length

2008-11-19 Thread Iljitsch van Beijnum
On 19 nov 2008, at 9:27, Eugeniu Patrascu wrote: My gripe was that I wanted to get an IPv6 allocation from RIPE to start testing how IPv6 would fit in the company that I work for and build a dual stack network so that when the time comes, just switch on IPv6 BGP neighbors and update the DNS

Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length

2008-11-19 Thread Eugeniu Patrascu
Joe Abley wrote: But surely he's not an end-user. He's an ISP, which means he's (potentially) an LIR. My gripe was that I wanted to get an IPv6 allocation from RIPE to start testing how IPv6 would fit in the company that I work for and build a dual stack network so that when the time comes

Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length

2008-11-19 Thread Joe Abley
On 2008-11-19, at 09:25, Eugeniu Patrascu wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We have also started offering residential Internet to those living on campus, which has been very popular (no suprise.) You've started your own ISP. ISP's get a /32 from ARIN. Case closed. In fact, you are better off t

Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length

2008-11-19 Thread Eugeniu Patrascu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We have also started offering residential Internet to those living on campus, which has been very popular (no suprise.) You've started your own ISP. ISP's get a /32 from ARIN. Case closed. In fact, you are better off treating your non-ISP networks as a customer of you

RE: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length

2008-11-19 Thread michael.dillon
> We have also started offering residential Internet to those > living on campus, which has been very popular (no suprise.) You've started your own ISP. ISP's get a /32 from ARIN. Case closed. In fact, you are better off treating your non-ISP networks as a customer of your ISP and assigning a

Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length

2008-11-18 Thread Tim Durack
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Crist Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >>> On 11/18/2008 at 11:03 AM, "Tim Durack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > >> Not

Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length

2008-11-18 Thread Crist Clark
>>> On 11/18/2008 at 11:03 AM, "Tim Durack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> Not long ago, ARIN changed the IPv6 policy so that >>> residential subscribers could be i

Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length

2008-11-18 Thread Tim Durack
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Not long ago, ARIN changed the IPv6 policy so that >> residential subscribers could be issued with a /56 >> instead of the normal /48 assignment. This was done >> so t

Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length

2008-11-14 Thread Fred Baker
Before we get too deeply exercised, let Margaret and I huddle on it. The issue you raised can be trivially solved by adding the checksum offset to a different 16 bits in the address, such as bits 96..127. In fact, the only reason to care which bits it is added to is to handle multi-DMZ site

Re: NAT66 and the subscriber prefix length

2008-11-14 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not long ago, ARIN changed the IPv6 policy so that residential subscribers could be issued with a /56 instead of the normal /48 assignment. This was done so that ISPs with large numbers of subscriber sites would not exhaust their /32 (or larger) allo